Comparison of intraocular pressure in New Zealand White rabbits measured using rebound and applanation tonometers and four different methods of physical restraint.

IF 1.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
New Zealand veterinary journal Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-26 DOI:10.1080/00480169.2023.2224277
S Okur, L E Yanmaz, M G Senocak, U Ersöz, A Gölgeli, F Turgut, O T Orhun, Y Kocaman
{"title":"Comparison of intraocular pressure in New Zealand White rabbits measured using rebound and applanation tonometers and four different methods of physical restraint.","authors":"S Okur, L E Yanmaz, M G Senocak, U Ersöz, A Gölgeli, F Turgut, O T Orhun, Y Kocaman","doi":"10.1080/00480169.2023.2224277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained in rabbits using rebound (TV) and applanation (TPV) tonometers with four different methods of physical restraint.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 20 New Zealand White rabbits (40 eyes) were included in this study. IOP readings were obtained from both eyes using the two different tonometers. The rabbits were placed on a table and restrained by wrapping in a cloth (Method I), by scruffing with rear support (Method II), by wrapping in a cloth and cupped in the hands (Method III), or by a box restrainer (Method IV).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean IOP measurement obtained by TPV was higher than that obtained with the TV for all handling methods. Mean differences (TV-TPV, in mmHg) in IOP were -5.3 (95% Cl = -6.5 to -4.1) for Method 1, -4.7 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.29) for Method II, -4.9 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.7) for Method III and -7.6 (95% Cl = -9.2 to -5.9) for Method IV. Using the TV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was higher than for Method I (mean difference 2.1 (95% Cl = 1.1-3.1)), whereas using the TPV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was significantly higher than Method I, II, and III (mean differences: 4.4 (95% Cl = 2.6-5.9), 3.7 (95% Cl = 2-5.3) and 3.8 (95% Cl = 2-5.4), respectively). According to Bland-Altman plots, IOP readings for TPV tended to be higher than those for TV with all handling methods, but with a lack of agreement. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement for the differences between TV and TPV were -5.4 mmHg (-12.5-1.9 mmHg), -4.7 mmHg (-12.9-3.5 mmHg), -4.9 mmHg (-12-2.2 mmHg), and -7.5 mmHg (-17.4-2.3 mmHg), with Methods I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Comparing TV and TPV, only 7.5%, 12.5%, 27.5%, and 15% of IOP measurements from 20 rabbits were within the range considered clinically acceptable for IOP (± 2 mmHg) for Method I, II, III, and IV, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion and clinical relevance: </strong>In conclusion, the physical restraint method should be recorded when IOP is measured in rabbits, and TV and TPV tonometers cannot be used interchangeably (high bias and low proportion of measurements within ± 2 mmHg).</p>","PeriodicalId":19322,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand veterinary journal","volume":"71 5","pages":"251-258"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand veterinary journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2023.2224277","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: To compare intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements obtained in rabbits using rebound (TV) and applanation (TPV) tonometers with four different methods of physical restraint.

Methods: A total of 20 New Zealand White rabbits (40 eyes) were included in this study. IOP readings were obtained from both eyes using the two different tonometers. The rabbits were placed on a table and restrained by wrapping in a cloth (Method I), by scruffing with rear support (Method II), by wrapping in a cloth and cupped in the hands (Method III), or by a box restrainer (Method IV).

Results: The mean IOP measurement obtained by TPV was higher than that obtained with the TV for all handling methods. Mean differences (TV-TPV, in mmHg) in IOP were -5.3 (95% Cl = -6.5 to -4.1) for Method 1, -4.7 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.29) for Method II, -4.9 (95% Cl = -6.2 to -3.7) for Method III and -7.6 (95% Cl = -9.2 to -5.9) for Method IV. Using the TV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was higher than for Method I (mean difference 2.1 (95% Cl = 1.1-3.1)), whereas using the TPV tonometer, mean IOP for Method IV was significantly higher than Method I, II, and III (mean differences: 4.4 (95% Cl = 2.6-5.9), 3.7 (95% Cl = 2-5.3) and 3.8 (95% Cl = 2-5.4), respectively). According to Bland-Altman plots, IOP readings for TPV tended to be higher than those for TV with all handling methods, but with a lack of agreement. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement for the differences between TV and TPV were -5.4 mmHg (-12.5-1.9 mmHg), -4.7 mmHg (-12.9-3.5 mmHg), -4.9 mmHg (-12-2.2 mmHg), and -7.5 mmHg (-17.4-2.3 mmHg), with Methods I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Comparing TV and TPV, only 7.5%, 12.5%, 27.5%, and 15% of IOP measurements from 20 rabbits were within the range considered clinically acceptable for IOP (± 2 mmHg) for Method I, II, III, and IV, respectively.

Conclusion and clinical relevance: In conclusion, the physical restraint method should be recorded when IOP is measured in rabbits, and TV and TPV tonometers cannot be used interchangeably (high bias and low proportion of measurements within ± 2 mmHg).

使用回弹式眼压计和眼压计以及四种不同的物理约束方法测量新西兰白兔眼压的比较。
目的:比较使用回弹式眼压计(TV)和滴视式眼压计(TPV)测量兔子眼压时四种不同的物理约束方法:本研究共纳入 20 只新西兰白兔(40 只眼)。使用两种不同的眼压计测量兔子双眼的眼压读数。将兔子放在桌子上,用布包裹(方法 I)、用后部支撑物拧住(方法 II)、用布包裹并用手掐住(方法 III)或用箱式束缚器(方法 IV)对兔子进行束缚:结果:在所有处理方法中,用 TPV 测量的平均眼压均高于用 TV 测量的平均眼压。方法一的平均眼压差异(TV-TPV,单位:毫米汞柱)为-5.3(95% Cl = -6.5至-4.1),方法二为-4.7(95% Cl = -6.2至-3.29),方法三为-4.9(95% Cl = -6.2至-3.7),方法四为-7.6(95% Cl = -9.2至-5.9)。使用电视眼压计,方法 IV 的平均眼压高于方法 I(平均差异为 2.1 (95% Cl = 1.1-3.1)),而使用 TPV 眼压计,方法 IV 的平均眼压显著高于方法 I、II 和 III(平均差异为 4.4 (95% Cl = 4.4)):4.4(95% Cl = 2.6-5.9)、3.7(95% Cl = 2-5.3)和 3.8(95% Cl = 2-5.4))。根据 Bland-Altman 图,在所有处理方法中,冠状静脉压的眼压读数往往高于电视的读数,但缺乏一致性。在方法 I、II、III 和 IV 中,TV 和 TPV 之间的平均差和 95% 的一致性范围分别为-5.4 mmHg(-12.5-1.9 mmHg)、-4.7 mmHg(-12.9-3.5 mmHg)、-4.9 mmHg(-12-2.2 mmHg)和-7.5 mmHg(-17.4-2.3 mmHg)。对比 TV 和 TPV,方法 I、II、III 和 IV 分别只有 7.5%、12.5%、27.5% 和 15%的 20 只兔子的眼压测量值在临床可接受的眼压范围内(± 2 mmHg):总之,在对兔子进行眼压测量时,应记录物理约束法,电视眼压计和 TPV 眼压计不能互换使用(偏差大,± 2 mmHg 范围内的测量比例低)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New Zealand veterinary journal
New Zealand veterinary journal 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: The New Zealand Veterinary Journal (NZVJ) is an international journal publishing high quality peer-reviewed articles covering all aspects of veterinary science, including clinical practice, animal welfare and animal health. The NZVJ publishes original research findings, clinical communications (including novel case reports and case series), rapid communications, correspondence and review articles, originating from New Zealand and internationally. Topics should be relevant to, but not limited to, New Zealand veterinary and animal science communities, and include the disciplines of infectious disease, medicine, surgery and the health, management and welfare of production and companion animals, horses and New Zealand wildlife. All submissions are expected to meet the highest ethical and welfare standards, as detailed in the Journal’s instructions for authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信